Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds the 'requires narrowing' constraint and the pharmacy guard detail, but does not disclose result behavior, empty-result handling, or matching semantics. This is acceptable given the annotations, but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the supported categories. The closing constraint is valuable and there is no filler, though the category enumeration is fairly long.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a search tool with seven parameters and no output schema, the description could usefully explain result presentation, empty-result behavior, or how to structure narrowed queries. It covers the domain and the narrowing requirement, and annotations cover safety, so it is minimally sufficient but not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description loosely maps to parameters like name→query, zona→zone, and categoría→category, and mentions guard pharmacies (onDuty), but it adds no new format or constraint details beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a clear verb and resource: 'Busca un sitio o servicio concreto de Alicante' and enumerates specific categories. It defines the tool's scope well, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like search_alicante or find_food, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The instruction 'Exige acotar la consulta' gives a useful constraint and the category list implies when to use the tool. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or exclusion conditions, leaving some selection to the agent's inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.